Worst Book Ever.

I haven't seen this thread yet, so I thought I would get some peoples' opinions on this matter. My vote would have to go to Flatland. If youve never heard of it, be thankful, because this book is so bad we had to read it in GEOMETRY ... (edit: in 9th grade)

I rarely ever finished a book I hated. Even in school I would just skim chapters and then bull**** my way through the essays or exams. But I have to say that the one book I've read through and didn't like very much at all was Great Expectations.

I haven't seen this thread yet, so I thought I would get some peoples' opinions on this matter. My vote would have to go to Flatland. If youve never heard of it, be thankful, because this book is so bad we had to read it in GEOMETRY ... (edit: in 9th grade)

sorry for the blurry pic:

tl;dr: its bad

It was bad, huh? Oh, that explains why they just reprinted it with a new edition and their making a feature-length animated film voice-starring MARTIN SHEEN.

It was written dryly. That doesn't mean it's a bad book. Books can be substantive in material, style, or both, and still be contributory (i.e. not bad). This one happens to be just in material. It's not bad.

It was bad, huh? Oh, that explains why they just reprinted it with a new edition and their making a feature-length animated film voice-starring MARTIN SHEEN.

It was written dryly. That doesn't mean it's a bad book. Books can be substantive in material, style, or both, and still be contributory (i.e. not bad). This one happens to be just in material. It's not bad.

And that's not a matter of doxastic belief.

I don't care how anyone tries to prove it otherwise to me, or what fanciful logic they try and argue with, 'good' and 'bad' are just points of view in my opinion.

It was bad, huh? Oh, that explains why they just reprinted it with a new edition and their making a feature-length animated film voice-starring MARTIN SHEEN.

It was written dryly. That doesn't mean it's a bad book. Books can be substantive in material, style, or both, and still be contributory (i.e. not bad). This one happens to be just in material. It's not bad.

And that's not a matter of doxastic belief.

right, martin sheen the guy thats been in oh so many great movies lately. and, if you're referring to the movie that came out a year or so ago ive read reviews that have claimed it to be one of the worst animated movies in the last few decades. clearly this thread is going to be filled with opinionated posts, so please dont be an *** and try and tell me im wrong about the books i like and dislike.

Catcher in the Rye isn't the worst, but it was annoying IMO. It was like reading some kid's myspace page.

Edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by T3H_MA$TA

right, martin sheen the guy thats been in oh so many great movies lately. and, if you're referring to the movie that came out a year or so ago ive read reviews that have claimed it to be one of the worst animated movies in the last few decades. clearly this thread is going to be filled with opinionated posts, so please dont be an *** and try and tell me im wrong about the books i like and dislike.

Catcher in the Rye isn't the worst, but it was annoying IMO. It was like reading some kid's myspace page.

Edit:
He's not trying to come off as an ***, that's just how he posts.

Heh, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that I am an ***.

But look kid, Flatland created, for the first time, a way of explaining the possibility of a fourth spatial dimension to the layman. It was flat out invaluable.

It's been used in ****-loads of literature on the subject (& off the subject). Hell, when I was a kid I read those Animorphs books. I understood the possibility of a fourth spatial dimension at, what, twelve? Thanks to that ****ing book being adapted by K.A. Applegate in dialogue form.

Believe me, it's no ****ty book. It's just written poorly. You need to get over your "Eww, it's so poorly written!" problems if your going to be respected for your opinion. Guess who reads dryly? Just about EVERY ****ING THINKER IN HISTORY. Aristotle, for one. And I won't even bother naming more. Aristotle should just about do it.

But look kid, Flatland created, for the first time, a way of explaining the possibility of a fourth spatial dimension to the layman. It was flat out invaluable.

It's been used in ****-loads of literature on the subject (& off the subject). Hell, when I was a kid I read those Animorphs books. I understood the possibility of a fourth spatial dimension at, what, twelve? Thanks to that ****ing book being adapted by K.A. Applegate in dialogue form.

Believe me, it's no ****ty book. It's just written poorly. You need to get over your "Eww, it's so poorly written!" problems if your going to be respected for your opinion. Guess who reads dryly? Just about EVERY ****ING THINKER IN HISTORY. Aristotle, for one. And I won't even bother naming more. Aristotle should just about do it.

right, because literature is completely about the underlying message right? it, in no way shape or form relies on delivery and communication to help and most of the times drive the central theme. i dont care if the book had tried to convey the secrets of the universe, if its not written well, it isnt a good piece of literature. hence the fact that it was read in a geometry class as opposed to one having anything to do with lit.